Upon the proposal of Councillor Heather Williams, seconded by Councillor Deborah Roberts, and by affirmation, the Committee agreed to re-word
(i) The recommendation to delete the reference to “in perpetuity” and
(ii) the provision in the Section 106 Agreement to require South Cambridgeshire District Council to use all reasonable endeavours to identify a Registered Provider willing to take possession of the relevant properties in the event of the Mortgagee-in-Possession clause being triggered, South Cambridgeshire District Council itself only taking possession should it not be possible to find a Registered Provider; and
By affirmation, the Committee approved the application subject to
(1) the inclusion of a Mortgagee-in-Possession clause as part of the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
a. ensuring that the properties remain affordable
b. securing the future maintenance and management of various elements of on-site open space
(2) rewording of the Legal Agreement to require South Cambridgeshire District Council to use all reasonanable endeavours to identify a Registered Provider willing to take possession of the relevant properties in the event of the Mortgagee-in-Possession clause being triggered, South Cambridgeshire District Council itself only taking possession should it not be possible to find a Registered Provider; and
(3) the Conditions and Informatives set out in the officer report presented to the Planning Committee on 10 June 2020.
(Councillor Nick Wright did not vote)
(Councillors John Batchelor, Bradnam, Cahn, Hawkins, Rippeth and Richard Williams voted to approve the application. Councillors Roberts, Heather Williams and Wright voted to refuse. Councillor Peter Fane did not take part in the debate or vote but did address the meeting as a local Member.)
By affirmation, the Committee gave officers delegated authority to approve the application subject to
1. The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ensure
(A) That the properties remain affordable in perpetuity and that the rents payable by occupiers of the Alms-houses shall not exceed 50% of market rent unless the charity landlord can satisfy South Cambridgeshire District Council that rents should be raised beyond that figure; and
(B) The future maintenance and management of various on-site areas of green space and landscaping around the residential development, including the central green space and Local Area of Play.
2. The conditions and informatives set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.
Although present, Councillor Brian Milnes had missed part of the debate because of technical issues. Therefore he did not vote in relation to either the amendment or the substantive motion.
The Committee unanimously approved the application subject to the conditions set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development, and an additional Condition restricting permitted working hours on the development of the site to between 8.00am and 6pm Monday to Friday and between 8.00am and 1.00pm Saturday. Working on Sundays and Bank Holidays would be prohibited.
The Committee approved the application, subject to the Conditions and Informative set out in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development, final wording and any minor amendments being agreed by the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee.
It was reported that Councillor Charles Nightingale (a local Member) supported the application, and that Great Shelford Parish Council had no objection to it.
The Committee approved the application, subject to
1. The prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the provision of affordable housing, and build out as self-build plots; and
2. The Conditions and Informative in the report from the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development, updated by a supplementary agenda dated 27 October 2017.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Condition set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, and an additional Condition requiring the construction, within the curtilage of the access (not the public highway), of two pedestrian visibility splays measuring two metres by two metres, such areas to be kept clear of enclosures exceeding 600 millimetres in height.
The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being the adverse impact on the residents of neighbouring properties and on the character of the surrounding area.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions, as slightly amended, referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, If required in policy terms following changes to National Planning Practice Guidance on 28 November 2014, securing contributions towards public open space, community facilities, waste receptacles and monitoring and legal fees, the approval of measures ensuring that the currently undesignated area at the southern end of the site is made subject to maintenance liability, and to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, Condition 10 being strengthened.
The Committee considered that very special circumstances existed for the development that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt through inappropriateness and other harm and gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to it being referred to the Secretary of State as a Departure from the Development Plan, and not being called in for determination.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing a financial contribution towards the provision and management of public open space, and the provision of new community facilities or the improvement of existing ones, and the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee gave officers delegated power to approve the application subject to the receipt of an amended landscape plan specifying revised planting, including beneath the bay windows, and fruit trees in the rear plots, and the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the application as amended by 1:500 scale block plan date stamped 16 January 2014, subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the application subject to Conditions 1, 2, 4 and 5 set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, Condition 3 being deleted.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee resolved to give officers delegated authority to approve the application, as amended by tree survey date stamped 19 September 2012; drawing number SK52A date stamped 16 October 2012; noise impact assessment date stamped 12 November 2012; and drawing numbers G003/102 Rev PL3 and 105 Rev PL2 date stamped 21 November 2012, subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement in accordance with the terms set out in this report from the Planning and New Communities Director and to include an overage provision amounting to 60% / 40% of surplus monies above a viability base figure (60% to be paid to South Cambridgeshire District Council, and such sum to be applied by the Council as an Affordable Housing commuted sum to mitigate towards the shortfall of Affordable Housing below 40% and arising from provision (across the 3 residential sites) of 21% and subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being that the compound fence was out of keeping with the street scene and neither preserved nor enhanced the Conservation Area. Members authorised officers to take enforcement action with a six month compliance period.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee approved the application as amended by additional information and Flood risk Assessment dated 5 April 2012, subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director.
The Committee refused the application. Members agreed the reasons for refusal as being the overbearing nature of the proposal by virtue of its siting, location within the site, scale and massing, the proposal’s adverse impact on the street scene, and the nature of the lighting scheme.
The Committee approved the application, subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee approved the application, subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee noted that this application had been withdrawn from the agenda.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions referred to in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee deferred the application and instructed officers, as a matter of urgency, to seek advice from independent consultants relating to highway safety by virtue of traffic intensification; and the impact on residential amenity of potential noise and disturbance, all resulting directly from the proposed plant and machinery;
The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). Reason: Members considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of current and future residents.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report, Conditions 2 and 7 being amended as indicated in the update report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), and additional Conditions requiring the submission of details of the parking area layout and of a landscaping scheme acceptable to the Local Planning Authority.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee refused the application to alter the shop front. Reasons: Members considered that the proposed alterations would not enhance, and would be inconsistent with, the character of the Conservation Area, and would detract from the local vernacular when compared with the previous shop front. As such, the proposal conflicted with policies CH/5 and CH/9 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007.
The Committee deferred the application to install plant and associated fencing in order to allow officers to assess its impact in terms of noise and traffic congestion, reference being made to relevant policies contained in the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007, and such assessment taking into account impact at various times of the day and evening. Members instructed officers to present a further report to a future meeting of the Planning Committee so that a final decision could then be made.
The Committee refused the application to install an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) for the reasons set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee approved the rectangular signs to side elevations, subject to the Condition set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), but refused the proposed fascia sign to the front elevation by virtue of its modern projecting lettering and use of non-traditional acrylic materials being unduly prominent and unsympathetic in appearance within the special historic centre of Great Shelford, designated as a Conservation Area. Members considered the fascia sign to be contrary to the requirements of Policies CH/4 and CH/8 of the South Cambridgeshire Development Control Policies Development Plan Document 2007, the South Cambridgeshire Development Affecting Conservation Areas Supplementary Planning Document 2009, the Great Shelford Village Design Statement and Planning Policy statement 5 (Planning for the Historic Environment), all of which require advertisements either to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Areas and to contribute positively to the appearance of an attractive and cared-for environment.
The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, as amended, subject to the Conditions set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), and to an appropriate redesign of the proposal to address Members’ concerns about boundary treatment, in particular by encouraging better integration of the scheme into the community by the removal of gates from the vehicular access, and by negotiating more sensitive treatment of the boundary with No. 7 Church Street, and to satisfy the additional requirements of the Conservation Manager.
The Committee refused the application for the reasons set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), the wording of Reason 2 being corrected to confirm that number 23 High Green is curtilage listed and the wording of Reason 3 being amended to omit reference to loss of evening sunlight to no 19A High Green.
The Committee approved the application subject to the Condition referred to in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities).
The Committee refused the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities). Reason: Adverse impact on the dwelling and garden at no. 68 Cambridge Road, Great Shelford.
The Committee deferred the application for a site visit.
The Committee approved the application contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities), subject to Conditions requiring first floor windows facing no. 3 Hinton Way to be glazed with obscure glass and non-opening, and the provision of a disabled persons’ car parking space on site. Reason: The Committee was satisfied that the design, height and scale of the extension would not be harmful to either the character of the existing building or this part of the village. The proposal need not have any harmful impact on the amenity of the adjoining residential property provided that the potential for overlooking was alleviated through the use of appropriate fenestration. The level of on on-site parking was considered acceptable, but should nonetheless accommodate the needs of disabled drivers.
The Committee refused both applications, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities). Reasons: Out of scale / proportion, and adverse impact on the neighbours at no. 19 High Green.
The Committee authorised officers to issue and serve an Enforcement Notice with a compliance period of six months.
Noting that the application was a departure from the Development Plan, the Committee gave officers delegated powers to approveor refuse the application, subject to the application not being called in by the Secretary of State for her determination. Approval would be subject to the submission of amended plans addressing concerns raised by the Trees and Landscape Officer and Local Highways Authority, and revising the basement parking plan, and a Section 106 Legal Agreement or Deed of Variation replicating the requirements of the previous agreement. The application would be refused if outstanding concerns could not be addressed satisfactorily.
Refused as report not only for the reason set out therein, but also noise emanating from vehicles using the proposed access close to no. 4 Mingle Lane, a failure to address the concerns expressed by the Inspector at the Appeal Hearing on 21 September 2006, adverse impact upon the trees on site (subject to confirmation by The Tees and Landscape Officer), overbearing nature and the proposal being out of keeping with the street scene.
Approved as report . No requirement to paint the flue black.
Delegated approval subject to officers from the Planning, Conservation, Building Control and Environment Health services meeting with each other and agreeing on the technical issues.
Approved as report
Refused contrary to report due to impact on the Conservation Area, the building and location of the car parking area being out of character with Wollards Lane, adverse effect on the street scene, negative impact on landscaping and conflict with the Village Design Guide.
Deferred to clarify the plans and to seek justification for the proposed increase in floor area.
Refused contrary to report – Members deemed there to be no special circumstances overriding the presumption against development in the Green Belt.
Approved as report subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement relating to the planting of new orchard trees, and extra Conditions relating to bird boxes and tree protection.
Approval of the application, as amended, for the reasons set out in the report from the Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities), subject to the Conditions referred to therein.
Refused contrary to report on the grounds of the development being detrimental to the character of the area, by reason of the amount of development, contrary to Policies P1/3 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 and HG10 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2004 and insufficient evidence submitted to satisfy Policy CS9 of the Local Plan in regard to loss of village service.
Delegated refusal for reasons 1-3, 5-7 and 9-10 in the report (Reasons 4 and 8 deleted), the effect on trees on site, and any other reasons flowing from comments yet to be received.
Refused contrary to report on the grounds of lack of parking and turning on site, and highway safety.
Minded to approve, contrary to report. Members agreed the reasons as being the absence of an alternative site (despite enquiries), the insignificance of any adverse impact, the part-brownfield nature of the site, the nature of the proposed use and service to be provided, and the lack of any need for additional car parking.
Approval as report.
Refused in line with officers’ amended recommendation, in view of the Local Highways Authority’s concerns about highway safety.
Approval as report
REFUSED, as amended by Flood Risk Assessment and ’Trees To Be Retained Plan’ drawing no. (PA)014 both date stamped 5 June 2006, for the reasons set out in the report and for additional reasons relating to the loss of trees, and ecological issues, and any additional reasons resulting from comments received from outstanding consultees.
Councillor R Hall declared a personal interest by virtue of his acquaintence with one of the Fellows of the College of St John the Evangelist, with whom he is a fellow member of Great St. Mary’s Church, Cambridge.
DELEGATED APPROVAL as amended by Flood Risk Assessment and ’Trees To Be Retained Plan’ drawing no. (PA)014 both date stamped 5 June 2006 for the reasons set out in the report, subject to Conditions based on those attached to permission S/2257/01/F referred to in the report, and to an additional Condition relating to ecology.
Approval for the reasons set out in the report from the Director of Development Services and subject to the Conditions referred to therein.
Refused as report.
Approval as report
Approval as report
Refused as report.
APPROVAL
DEFERRED
APPROVAL
DELEGATED APPROVAL
Delegated refusal
Delegated approval as report.
DEFERRED
Deferred
Approval as report.
Approval as report.
Refused for reasons of disturbance caused through creation of the new access, and loss of trees to make way for that access adversely affecting the character of the area.
Approval contrary to report. Reason: no adverse impact on character of the locality. Hence, the proposal was in compliance with Policy SE2 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2004. Members had visited the site.
Refused
Delegated approval
Approval as report
Refused as report
Refusal contrary to report.
Approval as report.
Approved contrary to report
Delegated approval/refusal
Delegated Approval
Delegated approval
Delegated approval
Delegated approval
Delegated Approval
Deferred for a site visit.